- #1
Jonstar
- 1
- 0
effect of the un
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jonstar
Throughout centuries, the UN has made goals and such to protect the right's of the imporverished and unfortunate ones.
The UN was founded in 1945.Originally posted by Jonstar
Throughout centuries, the UN has...
selfAdjoint said:If you read the history of the League, before WWII, you will see that the UN has drifted into almost the same blind alley the League did, making meaningless gestures of democracy while being maniputaled by the cynical powers.
That's just not true jimmy, and the UK willingly and meaningfully joins many UN initiatives, for which it gets just praise.jimmy p said:what do the UN do? They disagree with everything Britain does and slags them off, and then when Britain sort the problem out, they cower in their seats and pretend they said nothing..
Jonstar said:bump?
What about the War in Iraq? any comments? Clearly, the U.S is there for oil and not to safeguard human rights.
If that's the case, its exceedingly bad economic policy. Congress even voted not to use the proceed from oil sales to fund the reconstruction.Jonstar said:What about the War in Iraq? any comments? Clearly, the U.S is there for oil and not to safeguard human rights.
It's interesting in this thread, how at first the opinion was very negative of the UN but as people started researching a bit the opinion changed a bit. But let's talk about Iraq -- without the UN, Iraq today would probably be a nuclear power, rich on oil and controlled by that great evil dictator, Saddam Hussein.russ_watters said:The UN was founded in 1945.
I do agree though, mostly with the opinion that the UN is ineffective.
schwarzchildradius said:without the UN, Iraq today would probably be a nuclear power, rich on oil and controlled by that great evil dictator, Saddam Hussein.
You mean with unilateral US action, or what? You know, or it seems like you don't, the US in 1991 was part of a true international coalition allied to evict the Republican guard from Kuwait. By the way, what has Saddam done to you that you feel we need to destroy thousands of lives to git him?hughes johnson said:Without the UN, Saddam would have been out of power years ago.
How do you figure? Iraq isn't a nuclear power largely because Israel destroyed its highly developed nuclear program (French supplied of course) in 1981 and it never fully recovered. In '91 we hit them again (fortunately, they didn't get another French reactor - but the French would have sold them another if they could have). The best that can be said is that the UN didn't help them rebuild their nuclear program.schwarzchildradius said:But let's talk about Iraq -- without the UN, Iraq today would probably be a nuclear power, rich on oil and controlled by that great evil dictator, Saddam Hussein.
studentx said:How can ppl get so confused they would rather have Saddam than the Americans there?
hughes johnson said:No one is confused. It's just the way democrats conduct their presidential campaigns. You'll get used to it after a few decades.
hughes johnson said:A "constant stream of inept blunders" sounds like a good title for the biography of John Kerry.